Doctor-bashers turn on each other less than a month away from W-BAD – World Benzo Awareness Day

“We HAVE to stick together. We cannot NOT support any initiative that has even the remotest possibility of eliciting positive change. Please put any personal differences aside. Unless a proposed activity is illegal or unethical, please support it.” – Bliss Johns

“Preach!!! We are on the bleeding edges of a history making grass roots effort. We cannot afford division.” – Heather Solimine

“Also at issue here is how often I observe the benzo community turning on its own, hurting both well-meaning individuals and the larger benzo effort. Once judgment is declared, the conversation can turn so, so vicious. I think of Baylissa Frederick and Jennifer Austin Leigh, who have both given so much of themselves over the years to help people get through their hellish benzo journeys. They are positive, healing voices; both are highly knowledgable about patterns and methods involved in each person’s unique benzo journey and recovery. They both offer one of the few legitimate services for benzo discontinuation counseling and coping skills available. Yes, they do charge fees; but the costs are barely enough to sustain them. They do their work from a sense of purpose and need, with zero intent to exploit a vulnerable community. Yet over and over they are judged and attacked. And they always forgive and return because they are wonderful, deeply committed people who represent what is best about the community. But I worry; what if the day comes when one or both of them throw up their hands and say, Enough! ? Let’s protect our protectors. Let’s honor our warriors. All of them, which means all of you too —all who have or are experiencing benzo hell.” – Holly Hardman

http://www.asprescribedfilm.com/blog–notes/change-through-unity
https://www.facebook.com/BloominWellness/photos/a.184791441548985.50741.184782668216529/1300184013343050/?type=3

Cult leader uses phony dependence vs. addiction debate as opportunity to smear Gianna

Re: Not something I agree with: addiction
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2016, 01:46:35 am »

Colin

Hi all,

It is quite simple, really. Dependency describes a physical state. Addition describes a set of behaviours. Both those ‘addicted to’ and ‘dependent upon’ benzodiazepines are welcome at BenzoBuddies. It just so happens that those who are ‘dependent’ after taking benzodiazepines prescribed by – and as directed by – their doctor far outweigh the number of members who might be more accurately described as ‘addicts’. The reality is that BB (and support groups like us) were formed by those who experienced very problematic ‘dependency’ to benzodiazepines. I, personally, do not like the word ‘dependency’ (I don’t feel I was ever ‘dependent’ upon it for anything), but this is small semantic quibble, and is just opinion. Though, certainly, I would never choose to use the word ‘addict’ for what I went through, nor for the majority of our members. So, the majority of our members might prefer the term ‘dependent’, simply because that is a better (generally accepted) description of their situation. But, language being what it is, some who might be (objectively) described as being ‘dependent’ instead choose to describe themselves as being ‘addicted’. And, vise versa. Although I can understand why some people are exercised by the (mis)use of these terms, and I think the words do have (pretty objectively) different meanings, we should not get bent out of shape by the term being used interchangeably. In the main, it is just people with different interpretations of the terms, and how it applies to them. I think both sides might make their points, but then just accept the (sincerely held) differing views of others on this matter.

However, what I really do not like, is when people try to tell others ‘how it really is’, without any regard to inherent inaccuracies of language, and that people will have different opinions about ‘addiction’ and ‘dependency’ (and most other matters too). To put that blog entry and blogger into perspective, we had a lot of problems with Gianna when she was a member of this community. She had what I can only describe as a ‘hissy fit’ when we rejected her calls (demands, actually) for us to have a ‘bipolar’ support board at this forum. She then habitually linked to her blog in most of her posts here (even adding a link in her signature line) after she was told by one of the BB Admins that she could not do this because she was soliciting donations at her website. She eventually stopped frequenting our forum. She did return, maybe a year or more later,; we eventually banned her account (for similar abuses of our linking policy).

After the ban, Gianna went on to misinform the readers of her blog of why she was banned from BB. I’ve long been aware of her blog entry about her ban from this site, but have not been previously motivated enough to address it (at least so fully).

I’ve been banned from Benzo Buddies (benzodiazepine withdrawal forum)

Quote
I was finally banned from Benzo Buddies which is rather amusing because I asked that I be removed from membership over a year ago since they would not let me freely share my experience of having been multi-drugged. They refused to remove me. Since that time I’ve not visited as a member.

Actually, ‘no’, that is not what occurred. The blogger, Gianna, asked a third-party to intervene and request that I delete her account (this was after she left of her own accord the first time around). As a policy matter, we do not delete accounts unless requested to do so, directly, by the member concerned. At least twice I relayed back through to Gianna via the third-party that she would have to login and make the request herself. Instead, perhaps a year or more later, Gianna returned to BB, but never made a request for her account to be deleted. Instead, she continued from where she had left off, making lots of posts, usually with links back to her blog (with its requests for donations). This is why we banned her account! The original blog entry about her ban from BB is older than the updated one she has there now. The opening, updated information in the blog entry now reads:

Quote
Update: politics among us — I continue to be banned from benzo buddies and they continue to break the links their members post to my work (their members often post my work as they find it helpful) — the administrators of the site break the links to my site so they cannot be followed and misinform their readers that my blog is a commercial enterprise. I find this very sad. Very sad indeed. It’s also unethical and nasty to make out my site is commercial. I still link to them as being a reliable source of information to free oneself from benzos…there isn’t too much out there at the moment….and I care more about people’s ability to free themselves from drugs than politics. Still there are larger implications to this position they’ve taken with me that effect all their visitors. Essentially they deny the potential grave dangerousness of other psych drugs besides benzos. That is the bottom line.

This is the same kind of tone she used when she practically demanded that BB have a bipolar support board. We have a policy of not allowing ‘active’ (clickable) links to commercial websites (this includes sites requesting donations). And, actually, the links are not ‘broken’ at all – they were just made non-clickable. And Gianna’s BB signature line link persists to this day (albeit, deactivated too). But, if we had decided to remove the links entirely, and/or any mention of Gianna and her blog from BB, that would be our decision, not hers. Gianna seems to have a problem understanding the limits of her domain; she demands that we change our policy as it is somehow unfair to her. What is “unethical” is to register with a group, agree to abide by their rules, to knowingly and continuously break those rules when pointed out to her, and then lie about the reasons for her ban. It is also generally considered very bad form to enter someone else’s ‘house’ and demand that they make changes to accommodate your particular interests.

So, anyway, that blog entry fits with what I already know about Gianna. I thought, given enough time, she would have thought better of it and remove the blog entry about her ban from BB. Gianna was wrong to demand that BB be structured to her own preferences; she is wrong to label all those going through benzodiazepines withdrawal as ‘addicts’.*

I’d prefer to not write anything about Gianna. In reality, I am not particularly bothered about her (false) accusations regarding the circumstances of her ban from this forum. But, I see the same general (poor) attitude on display in the blog entry linked in the opening post here, so I felt I would comment more generally (probably more than I needed to).

* I mean no disrespect to those who might be more properly described as addicts (or choose to term their situation as ‘addiction’). But, given the general stigma associated with the use of the term (and its generally accepted associated behaviours), it should come as little surprise that people who have problems with benzodiazepines, when taken as prescribed by their doctor, might prefer a different (and more descriptive) term.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 01:54:17 am by Colin »

Re: Not something I agree with: addiction
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2016, 10:15:13 pm »

Colin

Hi,

I just wish to add, on the face of it, Gianna/Monica went through a really rough time. She is, quite evidently (and understandably) angry about what occurred to her. For this reason, I think she lacks objectivity. For similar reasons, this is why I caution members about extrapolating from the specific (their own experience) to the general; and is why BB has far more rules about writing style than content.

If Gianna is going to have such a ‘crusading’ blog, she will have to expect criticism. It comes with the territory. For the reasons I’ve already explained here and elsewhere, I do not think it sensible (or ethical) to make blanket (negative) statements about psychiatry and/or the medical profession. Things go wrong in every profession. And, of course, by the very nature of medicine, it is less exact than we might hope. Criticism and critiques are fine (and can be very useful too), but when we go further and make blanket statements based upon our personal experience (or the experiences of self-selecting groups), we are making the same kind of mistakes of which the self-interested medical trials by the pharmaceutical industry are sometimes accused.

So, I do not dismiss Gianna’s experiences. I just take issue with some of her generalisations. Well, that and her explanation of why she was banned from BenzoBuddies. ::)
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 10:24:57 pm by Colin »

Re: Not something I agree with: addiction
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2016, 04:47:59 am »

[Buddie]

It seems like I see links to Mad in America here all the time and they have a donation button. How is that different from Monica’s site? How come […] is free to put a link to Monica’s site but she herself can’t?

I suspect this has a lot more to do with conflicts other than the issue of whether a site is commercial, and I just can’t feel as down on her as you all seem to think we should be. I’ve looked at her site and it seems to me she’s knocking her lights out genuinely trying to help people.

Re: Not something I agree with: addiction
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2016, 08:55:15 am »

Colin

Quote from: [Buddie] on March 14, 2016, 04:47:59 am
It seems like I see links to Mad in America here all the time and they have a donation button. How is that different from Monica’s site? How come […] is free to put a link to Monica’s site but she herself can’t?

I suspect this has a lot more to do with conflicts other than the issue of whether a site is commercial, and I just can’t feel as down on her as you all seem to think we should be. I’ve looked at her site and it seems to me she’s knocking her lights out genuinely trying to help people.

Hi […],

Unless I’m mistaken, donations to MIA do not go to an individual (I could be wrong – please let me know if this is the case). Additionally, the position taken by a BB admin about Gianna’s links to her blog (with its appeal for donations) was a reasonable interpretation of our rules. There is no specific rule about this. Edge cases like this are prone to possible inconsistencies (not that I think that the MIA case is a proper comparison to Gianna’s). What I mean is, just maybe I (or another admin) would take a different view in either or both of these cases. Sometimes, it is a judgement call. Since I did not make the call, it is not possible for me to now post an unbiased view about what I would have done in either of those particular (edge) cases. But what I can say is this, I think the decision in each case is consistent with our rules (certainly not inconsistent) and that my guess is that I probably would have made similar determinations.

As for […] (or me) linking to Monica (Gianna’s) site and how is that different? Simple. When Gianna did it, it was self-interested promotion. When […] (and I) did it, it was in the aid of discussion.

This has nothing to do with “conflicts”. Gianna was banned from BB for consistently breaking our rules before blogging her (false) comments about the reasons for her ban from BB. The linked article, “we are all addicts” reminded me of other attitudes displayed by Gianna in the past. It was not an ad hominem attack precisely because I made clear it was her attitude with which I took issue. I addressed the content of her article separately. I don’t have a problem with criticisms or critiques of BB, but if sufficiently motivated, I might point out flat-out falsehoods – this should hardly come as a surprise. Here’s an example of how I react to criticisms of BB:

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=151694.msg2037304#msg2037304

Hardly the most eloquent critique of BB policies, but the poster is entitled to her views.

As for MIA (where the above appeared): I am not a great fan. Specifically, I don’t agree with their reasons for allowing so-called ‘information’ originating from Scientology to be posted at their website. Indeed, Scientologists are welcome to participate there. As I’ve written many times, Scientology are not honest brokers of information (they have an agenda to spread their own brand of ‘therapeutic counselling’, Dianetics – the abolition of psychiatry is part of that agenda). Further, allowing the dissemination of ‘information’ from Scientology invites unnecessary ridicule and skepticism, damaging their aims (and the aims of others) to make psychiatry more accountable.* So, I do not have a positive bias towards MIA. However, from what I have read there, I think they do provide some good information, and potentially useful critiques and discussion. If Gianna’s article had instead appeared at MIA, I would have been just as critical about it. And, if I might add, not withstanding my specific criticisms, I’m sure Gianna posts a lot of useful and/or interesting articles at her blog too.

I think it also worth me stressing that even BB members sometimes post (at BB) critiques of this place, its policies, me, etc. None of that, in of itself, is a problem or moderation issue. In example, I point you to the following BB thread, which questioned if BB could be more detrimental than positive for some people:

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=48083.0

My initial response, here:

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=48083.msg650876#msg650876

You might also read our feedback board.

Please keep in mind that BB is, first and foremost, a discussion space. And I am as entitled as any other member to post my views.

Edited to remove some repetition, for typos, and clarifications.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 11:00:07 pm by [Buddie] »

Maniacs at Benzo Buddies taking psilocybin so they can keep tapering

Psilocybin and MDMA (Psychedelic Drugs) for Psychiatric Disorders
« on: April 16, 2016, 12:11:17 pm »

[Buddie]

Novel psychopharmacological therapies for psychiatric disorders: psilocybin and MDMA

“A promising new model of treatment is under investigation in a resurgence of research into use of psychedelic drugs to augment psychotherapy. In this model, the drug is used on one or a few occasions during psychotherapy sessions to overcome obstacles to successful psychotherapy and to catalyse a therapeutic experience. It is theorised that the experience itself, rather than simply the pharmacological effects of the drug, might lead to cure or sustained remission of severe, treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders”.

You can register for free to read the full article.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366%2815%2900576-3/abstract

Re: Psilocybin and MDMA (Psychedelic Drugs) for Psychiatric Disorders
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2016, 12:26:00 pm »

[Buddie]

HA! Yeah, been there done that. A few of us here tried microdosing (psilocybin) and YES, it can help with PTSD tremendously by not allowing negative emotion to process within the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, it doesn’t help directly with the damage caused by the benzos. I actually did have a couple doses stop my waves dead in it’s tracks, it was only a couple times out of many and mostly it wasn’t very pleasant because my GABA receptors couldn’t play their role. During the dose it didn’t really help but it was usually the following days that felt a bit better. I stopped because it was just wearing me out. Did it help at all, in the long run? YES!! When I started, I was having nasty headaches and now they’re gone completely. Doesn’t help with gut damage though. It was an exciting experiment for sure I’m sure you can find the threads on it in here somewhere.

Cult Tower of Babel: Kooks argue addiction vs. iatrogenic dependence for the zillionth time

this unique group of folks who have been victimized by their own physicians

As the benzodiazepine crisis spreads throughout the United States and other parts of the world…

100 million benzodiazepine prescriptions written per year in the U.S. (with next to zero problems – what crisis? – Editor)

“addicts only”

Is there anything you are an expert on?

maybe you have Internet Comment Easily Upset Disorder

Victims whose only “mistake” was trusting in the recommendations of Big Pharma, Psychiatry, and medical doctors

this makes benzodiazepines one of the most dangerous categories of drugs on the planet (LOL – Editor)

I’m saying that playing the role of the victim, blaming doctors, lamenting over how bad the system is… that ain’t gonna do shit

Not sure what your point is.

there needs to be a paradigm change in the mental health field

  • I did it twice for folks on the street back in my “sorcerer for the hippies” days

Relax, dude. I don’t take orders from you…

Thanks for engaging on this very sensitive and difficult topic.
Mad in America: http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/bridging-the-benzo-divide-iatrogenic-dependence-andor-addiction/
Beyond Meds: http://beyondmeds.com/2016/03/21/bridging-the-benzo-divide-iatrogenic-dependence-andor-addiction/

Moran throws temper tantrum over Beyond Meds superstar Gianna’s disobedience

Re: Not something I agree with: addiction
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2016, 01:46:35 am »

Colin

Hi all,

It is quite simple, really. Dependency describes a physical state. Addition describes a set of behaviours. Both those ‘addicted to’ and ‘dependent upon’ benzodiazepines are welcome at BenzoBuddies. It just so happens that those who are ‘dependent’ after taking benzodiazepines prescribed by – and as directed by – their doctor far outweigh the number of members who might be more accurately described as ‘addicts’. The reality is that BB (and support groups like us) were formed by those who experienced very problematic ‘dependency’ to benzodiazepines. I, personally, do not like the word ‘dependency’ (I don’t feel I was ever ‘dependent’ upon it for anything), but this is small semantic quibble, and is just opinion. Though, certainly, I would never choose to use the word ‘addict’ for what I went through, nor for the majority of our members. So, the majority of our members might prefer the term ‘dependent’, simply because that is a better (generally accepted) description of their situation. But, language being what it is, some who might be (objectively) described as being ‘dependent’ instead choose to describe themselves as being ‘addicted’. And, vise versa. Although I can understand why some people are exercised by the (mis)use of these terms, and I think the words do have (pretty objectively) different meanings, we should not get bent out of shape by the term being used interchangeably. In the main, it is just people with different interpretations of the terms, and how it applies to them. I think both sides might make their points, but then just accept the (sincerely held) differing views of others on this matter.

However, what I really do not like, is when people try to tell others ‘how it really is’, without any regard to inherent inaccuracies of language, and that people will have different opinions about ‘addiction’ and ‘dependency’ (and most other matters too). To put that blog entry and blogger into perspective, we had a lot of problems with Gianna when she was a member of this community. She had what I can only describe as a ‘hissy fit’ when we rejected her calls (demands, actually) for us to have a ‘bipolar’ support board at this forum. She then habitually linked to her blog in most of her posts here (even adding a link in her signature line) after she was told by one of the BB Admins that she could not do this because she was soliciting donations at her website. She eventually stopped frequenting our forum. She did return, maybe a year or more later,; we eventually banned her account (for similar abuses of our linking policy).

After the ban, Gianna went on to misinform the readers of her blog of why she was banned from BB. I’ve long been aware of her blog entry about her ban from this site, but have not been previously motivated enough to address it (at least so fully).

I’ve been banned from Benzo Buddies (benzodiazepine withdrawal forum)

Quote
I was finally banned from Benzo Buddies which is rather amusing because I asked that I be removed from membership over a year ago since they would not let me freely share my experience of having been multi-drugged. They refused to remove me. Since that time I’ve not visited as a member.

Actually, ‘no’, that is not what occurred. The blogger, Gianna, asked a third-party to intervene and request that I delete her account (this was after she left of her own accord the first time around). As a policy matter, we do not delete accounts unless requested to do so, directly, by the member concerned. At least twice I relayed back through to Gianna via the third-party that she would have to login and make the request herself. Instead, perhaps a year or more later, Gianna returned to BB, but never made a request for her account to be deleted. Instead, she continued from where she had left off, making lots of posts, usually with links back to her blog (with its requests for donations). This is why we banned her account! The original blog entry about her ban from BB is older than the updated one she has there now. The opening, updated information in the blog entry now reads:

Quote
Update: politics among us — I continue to be banned from benzo buddies and they continue to break the links their members post to my work (their members often post my work as they find it helpful) — the administrators of the site break the links to my site so they cannot be followed and misinform their readers that my blog is a commercial enterprise. I find this very sad. Very sad indeed. It’s also unethical and nasty to make out my site is commercial. I still link to them as being a reliable source of information to free oneself from benzos…there isn’t too much out there at the moment….and I care more about people’s ability to free themselves from drugs than politics. Still there are larger implications to this position they’ve taken with me that effect all their visitors. Essentially they deny the potential grave dangerousness of other psych drugs besides benzos. That is the bottom line.

This is the same kind of tone she used when she practically demanded that BB have a bipolar support board. We have a policy of not allowing ‘active’ (clickable) links to commercial websites (this includes sites requesting donations). And, actually, the links are not ‘broken’ at all – they were just made non-clickable. And Gianna’s BB signature line link persists to this day (albeit, deactivated too). But, if we had decided to remove the links entirely, and/or any mention of Gianna and her blog from BB, that would be our decision, not hers. Gianna seems to have a problem understanding the limits of her domain; she demands that we change our policy as it is somehow unfair to her. What is “unethical” is to register with a group, agree to abide by their rules, to knowingly and continuously break those rules when pointed out to her, and then lie about the reasons for her ban. It is also generally considered very bad form to enter someone else’s ‘house’ and demand that they make changes to accommodate your particular interests.

So, anyway, that blog entry fits with what I already know about Gianna. I thought, given enough time, she would have thought better of it and remove the blog entry about her ban from BB. Gianna was wrong to demand that BB be structured to her own preferences; she is wrong to label all those going through benzodiazepines withdrawal as ‘addicts’.*

I’d prefer to not write anything about Gianna. In reality, I am not particularly bothered about her (false) accusations regarding the circumstances of her ban from this forum. But, I see the same general (poor) attitude on display in the blog entry linked in the opening post here, so I felt I would comment more generally (probably more than I needed to).

* I mean no disrespect to those who might be more properly described as addicts (or choose to term their situation as ‘addiction’). But, given the general stigma associated with the use of the term (and its generally accepted associated behaviours), it should come as little surprise that people who have problems with benzodiazepines, when taken as prescribed by their doctor, might prefer a different (and more descriptive) term.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 01:54:17 am by Colin »

Cult maniacs recommend Ecstasy as benzo withdrawal cure

drigsMDMA
« on: February 27, 2016, 06:13:36 am »

[Buddie]

Well i think that´s is the right section — I really would aprecciate if some of those above clear headed , wise yhat wrote about the “pharmacology”of many things that happens in the brain could Chime´in

So , i remember when i was on a heavy dose of clonazepam , at that time i was already hooked to it, In case of Running out of Pills
i would feel very , very bad
I was out with friends always at that time , thats not the poit — The point is I remember that When i took an ectasy on that time , like – wake up – take the benzos , soon later drop the ecstasy , i would feel fine all day long , I would sleep at night , and on the next day i would feel fine , great , and not needing any benzo , times that lasted 2 days without needing it , My question is why ´s that ? Why i didnt needed to take the benzos on those 2 days , after i took the extasy ? if i was already real hooked to them ?

This happend more then once or twice , i break my head trying to figure out , but i cant , may i have some help ?

Re: MDMA
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2016, 05:18:34 pm »

[Buddie]

GOLD POT .

Ty , vallley . I wonder why a drug is not developed from it . SMDH

Re: MDMA
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2016, 05:22:58 pm »

[Buddie]

The US is actually doing trials on MDMA and ketamine for treatment of different issues. Both are good for benzo withdrawal when used in moderation.

Re: MDMA
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2016, 02:01:02 am »

[Buddie]

Maybe is time to get some pills 

Re: MDMA
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2016, 02:16:42 am »

[Buddie]

Quote from: [Buddie] on February 28, 2016, 02:01:02 am
Maybe is time to get some pills

I had an RFA on my thoracic area a couple of weeks ago and was given ketamine. It was amazing how much it relieved sxs. I wouldn’t recommend using it much though due to addiction potential. I would think MDMA to be a little safer. I wish there was a clear cut way to mitigate withdrawal.

Homeopathy conference ends in chaos after delegates take hallucinogenic drug

An alternative medicine conference has ended in chaos in Germany after dozens of delegates took a LSD-like drug and started suffering from hallucinations.

Broadcaster NDR described the 29 men and women “staggering around, rolling in a meadow, talking gibberish and suffering severe cramps”.

The group of “Heilpraktikers” was discovered at the hotel where they held their conference in the town of Handeloh, south of Hamburg, on Friday. More than 150 medical staff, ambulances and police descended on the scene and took the raving delegates to hospital.

The patients, aged between 24 and 56, were found suffering from delusions, breathing problems, racing hearts and cramps, with some in a serious condition, Deutsche Welle reported.

Tests on their blood and urine revealed they had all taken hallucinogenic drug 2C-E, which is known as Aquarust in Germany and has been illegal there since the end of last year.

No one recovered sufficiently to be interviewed by police until Monday, a spokesperson said.

Torsten Passie, a member of the German government’s expert commission for narcotics, told NDR: “It must have been a multiple overdose. That does not support the view that the people concerned took the hallucinogen knowingly. One has to assume that people were not told about the substance, its effects and risks before taking it.”

Police are reportedly looking into possibilities including the drug being taken as a joint experiment, or it being furtively given to conference participants as a prank.

No arrests have yet been made as the investigation continues into a possible violation of Germany’s Narcotics Act.

The Association of German Healing Practitioners (VDH), which represents homeopaths as well as other naturopaths, quickly distanced itself from the embarrassment.

In a statement, it said none of its representatives took hallucinogens during the “incident” in Handeloh.

“The organisers of this obscure conference are unknown to us and such events will not be tolerated by our Association,” a spokesperson said.

“Unfortunately, the conference in Handeloh has severely damaged the image of the alternative medicine profession…and we have clarified that such acts are not in the spirit of natural therapy, and contradict our values both morally and legally. The Association of German Healing Practitioners (Heilpraktikers) detests such misdemeanors.”

The British Government’s drug advisory service, Frank, describes 2C-E as a psychedelic and hallucinogenic stimulant that has effects “somewhere between ecstasy and LSD”.

Anyone taking it experiences a buzz and feeling of being “alive and in tune with their surroundings”, their colours and smells.

It can also cause hallucinations, sexual arousal, hypersensitivity and other effects that become “more intense and uncontrollable” with higher doses.

The drug is classed as relatively new by Frank and not widely available in the UK, but is illegal as part of the phenethylamine family as a class A drug.

BENZO BUDDIES NOW HIRING

Benzo Buddies is actively looking for members to invite onto the team to help out and return the forum to normal functioning.

  1. Must be willing to throw morality, truth, sanity and reason out the window
  2. Has to be able to ban anyone who dares question the Supreme Leader (Colin)
  3. Willing to put in long hours being abusing, and be abused by, mentally ill drug addicts
  4. Must be delusional
  5. Can be on drugs (legal or ?)
  6. Has to have superiority complex
  7. Can be bipolar or completely psychotic
  8. Desire to be brainwashed a plus
  9. “Mad Gift” skills a plus (check with the Icarus Project or see schizophrenia or lunacy in dictionary)
  10. Willing to sign one billion year labor contract
  11. Unnatural obsession with Tom Jones
  12. Fear of butter a plus
  13. Believes insanity is a virtue
  14. Willing to cover up cult suicides
  15. Eager to see mentally ill drug addicts cut and suffer tapers for years off of minute amounts of benzodiazepines
  16. Does not use MSG or fluoride! Eats only free range chickens and organic foods!
  17. MUST HATE DOCTORS (ESPECIALLY LEO STERNBACH)
  18. Past experience with psychedelics a boon
  19. Must be full of self-pity (the more the better)
  20. Blames psychiatry for drug addiction
  21. Willing to target families of those who challenge the Supreme Leader
  22. 200+ hours of listening to Bliss Johns’ voice in the dark curled in a fetal position is a prerequisite for job candidates
  23. Must memorize Ashton Manual and Benzo Buddies Forum User Manual (FUM)
  24. Willing to wear Tin Foil Hat Benzo Buddies Uniform©
  25. Worship of Ashton, Breggin, Whitaker, Nimmo, Lader, Gianna, Frederick, Satan, Oprah, Dr. Drew, Moran, Manson, Xenu, Hope1962 a must
  26. Must be willing to sell soul (this one is a deal breaker)
  27. Willing to submit to mind control experiments
  28. Nuts
  29. Crazy
  30. Possessed by Satan
  31. Ability to lie a must (sociopathic tendencies and willingness to stab friends in the back repeatedly earns extra-points)
  32. Prior experience running benzo forums will gets ideal candidate to “top of the heap”
  33. Untreated OCD a plus
  34. Willing to hand out dangerous medical advice to total strangers based on nothing more than reading a few paragraphs online
  35. 5150 experience not necessary but adds points for right person

Candidates are encouraged to submit their resume by contacting Colin or Hope1962 through the PM system or the Help Desk. Include ‘pound of flesh’ for consideration. Totally anonymous.